Three-Dimensional (3-D) Video Systems: Bi-Channel or Single-Channel Optics?

Background and Study Aims: This paper presents the results of a comparison between two different three-dimensional (3-D) video systems, one with single-channel optics, the other with bi-channel optics. The latter integrates two lens systems, each transferring one half of the stereoscopic image; the former uses only one lens system, similar to a two-dimensional (2-D) endoscope, which transfers the complete stereoscopic picture.

Material and Methods: In our training centre for minimally invasive surgery, surgeons were involved in basic and advanced laparoscopic courses using both a 2-D system and the two 3-D video systems. They completed analog scale questionnaires in order to record a subjective impression of the relative convenience of operating in 2-D and 3-D vision, and to identify perceived deficiencies in the 3-D system. As an objective test, different experimental tasks were developed, in order to measure performance times and to count pre-defined errors made while using the two 3-D video systems and the 2-D system.

Results and Conclusion: Using the bi-channel optical system, the surgeon has a heightened spatial perception, and can work faster and more safely than with a single-channel system. However, single-channel optics allow the use of an angulated endoscope, and the free rotation of the optics relative to the camera, which is necessary for some operative applications.

References

• 1 Becker H, Melzer A, Schurr M O, Buess G F. 3-D video techniques in endoscopic surgery.  Endosc Surg. 1992;  1 40-46
• 2 Buess G F, van Bergen P, Kunert W, Schurr M O. Vergleichsstudie verschiedener 2-D und 3-D Sichtsysteme in der minimal invasiven Chirurgie.  Chirurg. 1996;  67 1041-1046
• 3 van Bergen P, Kunert W, Schurr M O, Buess G F. Vergleichsstudie Endoskopischer 2-D und 3-D Sichtsysteme.  Langenbecks Archiv für Chirurgie. 1996;  II 634-637
• 4 van Bergen P, Kunert W, Buess G F. Comparative study of different 2-D and 3-D vision systems for minimally invasive surgery.  Surg Endosc. 1998;  12 948-954
• 5 Birkett D H, Josephs L G, Este-McDonald J. A new 3-D laparoscope in gastrointestinal surgery.  Surg Endosc. 1994;  8 1448-1451
• 6 Durrani A F, Preminger G M. Advanced endoscopic imaging: 3-D laparoscopic endoscopy.  Surg Tech Int. 1994;  III 141-147
• 7 Hanna G B, Shimi S M, Cuschieri A. Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Lancet. 1998;  351 248-251
• 8 Jones D B, Brewer J D, Soper R N, Soper N J. The influence of three-dimensional video systems on laparoscopic task performance.  Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1996;  6 191-197
• 9 McDougall E M, Soble J J, Wolf J S, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional laparoscopic video systems.  J Endourol. 1996;  10 371-374
• 10 Mitchell T N, Robertson J, Nagy A G, Lomax A. Three-dimensional endoscopic imaging for minimal access surgery.  J R Coll Surg Edinburgh. 1993;  38 285-292
• 11 Peitgen K, Walz M V, Holtmann G, et al. A prospective randomized experimental evaluation of three-dimensional imaging in laparoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44/3 262-267
• 12 Vry U, Krause-Bonte M. 3D-Endoskopie in der Chirurgie, aufrecht und dreidimensional in jeder Blickrichtung.  Zeiss Information mit Jenaer Rundschau 4. 1995;  6 6-8
• 13 Schwind Herbert GmbH, KG. Optische Geräte Betriebshandbuch.  TITMUS. 1985;  II 15
• 14 Kunert W, Flemming E, Schurr M O, Buess G F. Optik mit natürlicher Zusatzbeleuchtung.  Langenbecks Archiv für Chirurgie. 1997;  II 1232-1234